agda_auto

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'try to automatically solve a goal.' It does not state whether this operation modifies the file, what happens on failure, any side effects, or whether it's a safe read-only attempt. The word 'try' implies a potential failure but gives no further detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a simple args list. It front-loads the action and every sentence adds value. There is no unnecessary filler, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core action and parameter semantics but lacks usage context and behavioral details. With no annotations and an output schema (not shown), the agent is left uncertain about side effects, failure modes, or how this compares to similar auto-solving tools. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly defines both parameters: file_path is the absolute path to the .agda file, and goal_id is the goal/hole number from agda_load output. This fully compensates for the schema gap and gives the agent all necessary parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'automatically solve a goal.' It is distinct from many siblings like agda_case_split or agda_goal_type, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from agda_solve_one or agda_auto_all, which likely have similar functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agda_refine, agda_solve_one, or agda_auto_all. It only mentions that goal_id comes from agda_load output, which is a prerequisite but not a usage guideline. It lacks any when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.